In re Estate of Morgan

419 N.E.2d 2, 65 Ohio St. 2d 101, 19 Ohio Op. 3d 301, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 454
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 31, 1981
DocketNo. 80-786
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 419 N.E.2d 2 (In re Estate of Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Estate of Morgan, 419 N.E.2d 2, 65 Ohio St. 2d 101, 19 Ohio Op. 3d 301, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 454 (Ohio 1981).

Opinion

Clifford F. Brown, J.

This case raises the question whether interest charged on late payment of Ohio estate tax is deductible from the gross estate of decedent. To decide the matter, reference must be made to R. C. 5731.161 which provides for certain deductions from the value of the gross estate. Subdivision (A)(2) specifies that administration expenses may be deducted. Division (D) states that various taxes accruing after the death of the decedent, although incurred in the administration of the estate, may not be deducted. We must determine whether interest charged on late payment of estate tax pursuant to R. C. 5731.232 is properly deducted as an administration expense under R. C. 5731.16(A)(2) or treated as a nondeductible tax pursuant to R. C. 5731.16(D).

To guide our decision, we note that earlier Ohio tax cases establish that deductions will not be implied from statutory language. Only those deductions expressly provided for by statute wall be allowed. Westinghouse v. Lindley (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 137; Beckwith & Assoc. v. Kosydar (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 277; Kroger Co. v. Bowers (1965), 3 Ohio St. 2d 76. In this case, the relevant statute allows deductions for “administration expenses” without specifying what such expenses may include. It is clear from division (D) of the section that deductible expenses do not include taxes, but it is equally clear that interest on a tax is not the same thing as the tax itself. Estate of Bohr v. Commissioner (1977), 68 T. C. 74; Pearson v. Commissioner (1944), 4 T. C. 218, affirmed, 154 F. 2d 256 [103]*103(C.A. 3, 1946); Penrose v. United States (E.D. Pa. 1937) 18 F. Supp. 413; Capital Building & Loan Association v. Commissioner (1931), 23 B.T.A. 848. The section authorizing interest charges on late payments states that such interest “shall be charged and collected in the same manner as the tax.” R. C. 5731.23. It appears then that the General Assembly has not clearly mandated whether interest is treated as an administration expense or a tax. Where the language of the statute, as here, is ambiguous, R. C. 1.493 sets forth the test to aid the courts in interpreting that language.

Examining the Ohio statute at issue here reveals remarkable congruities with the federal estate tax provisions. R. C. 5731.16(A)(2) finds its counterpart in Section 2053(a)(2), Title 26, U. S. Code.4 Both use nearly identical language to describe the deductibility of administration expenses. Similarly, R. C. 5731.16(D) parallels Section 2053(c)(1)(B), Title 26, U. S. Code,5 in disallowing deductions for taxes accruing after death. This congruity arises from the conscious modelling of the Ohio provisions on federal estate tax law. See Glander, The New Ohio Estate Tax, 29 Ohio St. L. J. 849; Boehm, Selected Divergencies in the Ohio and Federal Estate Tax Pattern, 7 Cap. U. L. Rev. 193. Since the General Assembly borrowed [104]*104substantial portions of the federal estate tax structure, constructions of the federal provisions should be given great weight in interpreting the comparable Ohio sections. See Schneider v. Laffoon (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 89, 96.

The issue before this court was previously raised at the federal level in Estate of Bahr, supra. That case held that interest is properly considered a deductible administration expense. The Internal Revenue Service subsequently issued Rev. Rul. 78-125 which follows the decision of Estate of Bahr and authorizes deduction of interest from the value of the gross estate. See, also, Estate of Buchholtz v. Commissioner (1978), 70 T.C. 814. Given the deductibility of this item at the federal level, and the use of the federal provisions as a model for the Ohio Estate Tax law, we hold that R. C. 5731.16(A)(2) authorizes the deduction of interest charged for late payment of Ohio estate tax from the value of the gross estate, thereby reducing estate tax liability.6

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Cook, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur. Cook, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for W. Brown, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stancourt v. Worthington City School District Board of Education
841 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Estate of Millikin v. Commissioner
106 F.3d 1263 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
ESTATE OF
106 F.3d 1263 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
State v. Moore
651 N.E.2d 1319 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)
Cory v. Coudures
151 Cal. App. 3d 741 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
GMS Management Co. v. Axe
449 N.E.2d 43 (City of Cleveland Municipal Court, 1982)
Martins Ferry Jaycee Housing, Inc. v. Pawlaczyk
448 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
419 N.E.2d 2, 65 Ohio St. 2d 101, 19 Ohio Op. 3d 301, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-morgan-ohio-1981.